No. But those things aren't due to immigration, are they?
Immigrants contribute to the economy. That means doing worth that a) is taxable directly and b) grows businesses which make them pay more tax. We can see from the page I linked to earlier that over half the immigrants are here on work visas which means they are working, and nearly all the rest are literally paying to be here.
If immigration was controlled and at a moderate level it would be fine - you could realistically plan in advance so you had enough skills to build the houses, the infrastructure and provide the additional services. Immigrants themselves would be part of the solution and most people would be fine with it.
You could still question where all this relentless expansion was going; what the point of it all was, especially when your local green belt disappeared once and for all, replaced by rows of crap soulless new builds built to house people who built the houses, but it would at least be controlled and sustainable and that wouldn't cause as many issues.
It's the lack of control and the huge numbers which are the problem. Realistically you can't plan for sudden spikes of up to 900k net immigration per year (I may have erroneously rounded this number up earlier, so I will round it down now for balance) and such chaotic and huge numbers are bound to have an impact.
Perhaps the impact won't be felt by those in the leafy suburbs celebrating as the income from their rental properties continues to increase and not by employers celebrating as staff wages go down, but it'll be felt somewhere.
Lots of work to do this afternoon so must go now. But just thought I'd leave this here since nobody seems to have given much thought to the immigrants themselves. Flawed immigration policy causes horrific abuse of immigrants workers in "national scandal" - how do those plopping themselves on the moral high ground and throwing out accusations of racism feel about this? Not worth a mention?
But just thought I'd leave this here since nobody seems to have given much thought to the immigrants themselves. Flawed immigration policy causes horrific abuse of immigrants workers in "national scandal" - how do those plopping themselves on the moral high ground and throwing out accusations of racism feel about this? Not worth a mention?
Blimey, what hypocrisy. It is the racist rhetoric which Starmer used in a desperate attempt to emulate Nigel Farage, and how that can only further fuel hatred and division in an already highly toxic environment, which bothers me (and a multitude of Labour MPs) not the figures which he used.
And yet all you have been interested in discussing is the net migration figures not the consequences of Starmer publicly accusing immigrants of causing incalculable damage to Britain, and how that feeds into Nigel Farage's racist narrative.
The speech was an absolute disgrace designed to demonise immigrants in a squalid attempt to attract the votes of bigots who will never vote Labour anyway.
A sensible debate about immigration without the inclusion of racist rhetoric is a completely different exercise to the one performed by Starmer a few days ago.
And this is the result
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52187-political-favourability-ratings-may-2025
This fall in Starmer’s popularity is concentrated among Labour voters, half of whom (50%) now have an unfavourable view of the prime minister, a 17-point increase from mid-April. The proportion with a favourable opinion has correspondingly fallen from 62% to 45% over the last month.
This is the first time Keir Starmer has recorded a net negative approval rating among Labour voters.
Perhaps the impact won't be felt by those in the leafy suburbs celebrating as the income from their rental properties continues to increase
Again, a little bit louder this time - this not an immigration problem, it's a wealth inequality problem.
Some people have clearly fallen for the everything is the fault of immigration which is not surprising as they have been told that for a long time. Reversing that will be almost impossible given that nobody is even trying to do that.
As I said a few days ago, let's do an experiment and bring immigration down to zero and then see how happy all those on the anti immigration bandwagon are as they feel the effects. Once they have had to accept immigration is required then you can start from a better place in any conversation.
As I said a few days ago, let's do an experiment and bring immigration down to zero and then see how happy all those on the anti immigration bandwagon are as they feel the effects.
The let the toddler burn their hand on the hob after being told ten times not to do it model?
Maybe. It's hardly a way to run a supposedly first world country with a high standard of compulsory education, though.
And when services (continue to) crumble, along will come another populist saying it is all the fault of woke employment laws / net zero / gays / single mothers / etc.
Maybe. It's hardly a way to run a supposedly first world country with a high standard of compulsory education, though.
What people believe and what they fall for suggests that is not the case. Clearly nobody is ever going to lower migration that much because they know full well that it is required and is a benefit to economy overall but they have to pretend it is a problem to deflect from their own failures.
The latest Techne poll out now, still not much evidence of an "Island of Strangers" speech bounce...... Labour down 1 point Reform up 1 point, despite Starmer's speech being apparently well received by Reform voters, iirc 60% liked it. I guess they prefer the real Nigel Farage to Labour's version.
a net negative approval rating among Labour voters
Unsurprised.
Assuming he fails to "clarify" what he meant about "incalculable damage" and "island of strangers" very soon, his standing with Labour voters and members will plummet further. Either way... the "might as well give Farage a chance" feeling will grow now with the wider electorate. A PM using words that can be seen as legitimising what Farage stands for, while the Reform party leader is in a position where he can say and do anything without having to worry about delivering anything, is likely to prove to be dangerous, naive, and foolhardy.
Nothing to argue with here.
https://bsky.app/profile/polphilpod.bsky.social/post/3lpbjq6vuu22e
Second, the government positioning itself as ‘tough’ on immigration and asylum will not have the intended effect of sidelining the far-right. We believe that accepting their core premise – the main problem facing the country is immigrants – only validates them. Attempting to outbid them with deportations and visa denials will always fall short. They will not be satisfied with falling net migration numbers. They will never be satisfied.
The far-right is on the rise globally. What is needed in this moment is a clear articulation of why they are wrong, and an aggressive defence of core liberal democratic values.
I have never agreed with any comment more.
Decent by-election result for Reform in, err, Scotland...
A supposedly Labour PM using words that can be seen as legitimising what Farage stands for, while the Reform party leader is in a position where he can say and do anything without having to worry about delivering anything, is likely to prove to be dangerous, naive, and foolhardy.
Just added a wee bit, but yep, that nails it.
As I keep saying - if nothing else, the political stupidity of Starmer doing this punctures the myth of the competent lawyer type gradually making things better through structural reforms whilst not giving his enemies anything to latch on to.
What a tosser.
🤦♂️
I had a couple of barristers (one now a Labour lord) come in and give a lecture to my students. They were ferociously bright and witty and I'd never heard such precise and incisive use of language. Nice blokes too. Starmer doesn't strike me as any of those things. Despite his cv he comes across as slow on his feet and puts his foot in his mouth. I can only imagine he got those jobs for being well known as a jobsworth and a lickspittle.
Yes BillMC - he strikes me as clumsy and totally inconsistent.
I've never gone along with the career politician thing but he's the absolute archetype.
Yes BillMC - he strikes me as clumsy and totally inconsistent.
I've never gone along with the career politician thing but he's the absolute archetype.
And nice to see 'lickspittle' getting a run out - not heard that in ages.
👍
Starmer isn't even a career politician.
Politics is simply the current stage in his life of personal self-fulfilment.
The next post-politics stage is likely to be highly lucrative, they usually are for former Prime Ministers. And I am sure that Starmer won't give a **** about the mess that he leaves behind. Former PMs generally don't.
Maybe he got spooked by the headlights, like when Cameron got spooked into calling the brexit referendum by Farrage & the extreme right.
Oh come on, this thread isn't the place to discuss the issue in detail but both Labour and the LibDems strongly supported calling a referendum on EU membership.
In fact the party which you back, the LibDems, were the first in parliament to call for an EU referendum, not the Tories. Only the SNP were consistently opposed to an EU referendum.
Of course it is, its a thread about the UK government.
"In fact the party which you back, the LibDems, were the first in parliament to call for an EU referendum"
You're so disingenuous - If a fair, legally binding referendum was proposed with all the checks and balances that come with that, I wouldn't have a problem with it - I'd still have voted remain but I would have been more accepting of any result.
That's not what we got, and what we got is not what the lib-dems proposed, they may have mentioned it in 2007, but they campaigned to remain in 2016, and you know it. 🙄
You're so disingenuous
There is nothing disingenuous about it at all, the LibDems were the first party in parliament to call for a referendum on EU membership.
What is actually disingenuous is to blame it all on David Cameron. Both Labour and the LibDems strongly supported a referendum on EU membership. And obviously for exactly the same reason as Cameron, ie they assumed that Remain winning was a given.
not the consequences of Starmer publicly accusing immigrants of causing incalculable damage to Britain, and how that feeds into Nigel Farage's racist narrative.
The speech was an absolute disgrace
He didn't actually say that in his speech. He said it in the white paper and the context - if anyone can be bothered to educate themselves by reading it - is quite clearly the Tory open borders experiment, not immigration generally.
Your whole argument is in bad faith and I don't think you really care about immigrants at all, it's just about political point scoring. Frankly the way you just repeat the same lie over and over is reminiscent of the post-truth dystopian stuff we get from fringe lunatics on the American far right. Say it enough times and hopefully it will stick, is that the strategy?
Perhaps the impact won't be felt by those in the leafy suburbs celebrating as the income from their rental properties continues to increase
Again, a little bit louder this time - this not an immigration problem, it's a wealth inequality problem.
Yeah maybe, but with no prospect of wealth inequality ceasing to exist, I'd say that's a fairly academic distinction. Certainly, it doesn't help those struggling to pay their rent this week.
is quite clearly the Tory open borders experiment, not immigration generally.
Maybe you should read what I wrote. I didn't claim that Starmer had made it in reference to "immigration generally". I am fully aware that Starmer is suggesting that under the Tories immigration was out of control (the very thing that the Tories traditionally accuse Labour governments of doing) and it was this so-called uncontrolled immigration that had "incalculable" damage to the UK.
Scroll back and you will see that I am specifically pointing out that Starmer is accusing recent immigrants into the UK of causing incalculable damage.
It is vile and dangerous rhetoric which can only inflame an already highly toxic environment for immigrants and refugees. The people causing incalculable damage are arse-holes like Sir Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage.
Frankly the way you just repeat the same lie over and over is reminiscent of the post-truth dystopian stuff we get from fringe lunatics on the American far right. Say it enough times and hopefully it will stick, is that the strategy?
Would you expand that accusation to include the multitude of Labour MPs and political pundits who have likewise expressed their disgust at Starmer's desperate attempt to ape Nigel Farage/Enoch Powell?
I'll repeat it.
The policy area will be what it will be. It can be assessed as effective/ineffective and humane/inhumane when it is in place.
But Starmer did not have to be a **** about it with comments that Farage or Jenrick or Badenoch would use. "Island of Strangers" and "incalculable" damage done by recent immigrants were phrasing that he chose to use to appeal to a certain demographic that we all know.
Sometimes people outside a society see where the problems lie better than those within it. I was watching German TV this afternoon trying to take my mind off a heavy cold. They quoted what the richest x percent of British households were saving per month (a lot) compared with what the Y poorest percent were saving (naff all). They pointed out the high levels of household debt compared to GDP in the UK and how it disproportionately affected the poorest sections of society - I was sceptical enough to Google/fact check:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_household_debt
The programme went on to the number of bankrupt households, unaffordable rents... and the number of people worried by their financial situation. The proportion quoted, over half, seemed improbable so I fact checked again and found polls that back up the programme, and even the ONS:
It was all pretty damning, however they forgot to mention that the NHS still functions and that Brits are to some extent protected from a significant cause of going under financially in Europe, paying for essential drugs, though I've noticed the NHS not prepared to pay for some treatments now in news reports.
Starmer and Farage are obsessing about a few refugees in boats when there are hundreds of thousands of households that struggle to make ends meet, even when both partners work and they live modestly in the cheapest accomodation they can find.
Which brings us to housing:
family houses occupied by single people, mainly elderly and with nowhere else pleasant/affordable to go. There's a huge potential for downsizing but people of my mother's generation have too many friends/relatives who've been ripped off when doing so, so they stay put. Unless... .
Very little social housing
airbnb
housing starts too low to meet projected rises in population even if Starmer's targets are met which seems unlikely
Sprawling estates of ageing energy sieves in lousy condition on traffic choked roads
With the population projected to rise to 73 million in 2036 there are some bullets to be bitten and houses/flats to be built.
Starmer and Farage are obsessing about a few refugees in boats when there are hundreds of thousands of households that struggle to make ends meet, even when both partners work and they live modestly in the cheapest accomodation they can find.
This.
Starmer could have got up that day and talked a good talk about this 'squalid' chapter of Neolibralism and years of self-imposed fiscal rules creating the all the main problems of society relating to government investment of any kind.
But he didn't, instead he focused on the thing that inflames the most.
We had all this embarrassing talk previously about ideological purity - which sickens me to my core with the ignorance of that particular statement (playing into the hands of continuity capitalism). This government has literally carried out ideological purity be putting fiscal rules in place that service no societal pragmatic purposes other than to create a restrictive headroom space for government intervention. (Not a real limitation by the way.)
The reality is we need a change of ideology to push-back against the worst effects we have suffered from Neolibralism.
Starmer has at least unveiled for sure the falsehood of his pragmatism and his drive to use hate to get what he wants rather than being bold and actually begin fix the foundations of the UK.
The good news is most people have at least recognised this Scooby-Doo moment and if you haven't you probably will going forward.
Also was thinking this morning (using household analogy which is incorrect but to make a point) - you have to question the acumen of a goverment that chose to *'save' 1.4bn of money with the WFA cut for all the bad will it generated. 25/26 budget is around 1.3 trillion. Also the Treasury is paying out circa 50bn a year in interest on reserves (that's a choice BTW.)
All that shit for 1.4bn. That's total incompetence at any level.
* A government with a central bank and Fiat currency never saves in its spending process. There is no savings account. As all money spent is new money not plucked from an account where money has built up.
Starmer and Farage are obsessing about a few refugees in boats
Any political party that hopes to form a govt in the near future will have to rely on the votes of a hand full of constituencies across the midlands and the M62 corridor. 40% of those people cited immigration as the number one issue that the UK faces. 3 out of every 10 voters are possibly going to the polls with that in mind, and all you can do is hope that some of the things you've said cut through to them. That's the reason Starmer is talking about immigration, he has to retain these seats. Elections are a beauty contest, not a ideological purity test.
That's the reason Starmer is talking about immigration, he has to retain these seats. Elections are a beauty contest, not a ideological purity test.
We know why Farage uses racist rhetoric the issue is why the leader of the Labour Party now also does.
And it's hardly a beauty contest, it's in fact quite ugly
That's the reason Starmer is talking about immigration, he has to retain these seats
He also has to retain other seats which his current approach of blaming immigrants and ignoring the actual issues is unlikely to appeal to.
It isnt even going to work for those seats since he is engaging in an unwinnable battle. Since immigration isnt close to being the primary factor "solving" it simply cant work. People will still see the same problems and since they have been told its immigrants to blame will conclude any statistics showing that the numbers have dropped will be wrong.
not a ideological purity test.
And "oven ready deal", "get brexit done". Whoops sorry forgot which groups three word slogans I was supposed to repeat religiously.
Ironically the problem is Starmer and co are extremely ideological pure which leaves them floundering around searching for solutions and buying into the hard right populism.
Whoops sorry forgot which groups three word slogans
I'm not racist but... seems to be the slogan the starmerbots now think is a winning argument.
And actually racism should be an ideological purity test, on some issues there are no grey areas.
We know why Farage uses racist rhetoric the issue is why the leader of the Labour Party now also does.
Absolutely this. All it does is reinforce the wrong idea within the population.
"Smash the Gangs" was never going to achieve anything because it was aimed unfairly at a small proportion of immigration numbers.
It isn't as though he'll be struggling to push a fair policy through Parliament
40% of those people cited immigration as the number one issue that the UK faces
Are those the places where 50% of the population is either an immigrant or has an immigration background ? Black humour apart, I think I'd rather appeal to the 60% and work on convincing the 40% that their immigrant neighbours haven't caused "chaos" and that immigration during the last Conservative government wasn't a "squalid chapter".
And actually racism should be an ideological purity test, on some issues there are no grey areas.
Exactly, which is why being a moderate politically is not the clever-ass move some believe it is.
Moderate beliefs exist to remove the left and give the right the space it needs. Hence 3 right-wing options.
That's the reason Starmer is talking about immigration, he has to retain these seats.
His problem will always be that he'll never out-Farage Farage - he needed to seize the narrative and talk about how we benefit from migration, but he chose not to. Smash the gangs, by all means, but don't also demonise the people they exploit.
I had a couple of barristers (one now a Labour lord) come in and give a lecture to my students. They were ferociously bright and witty and I'd never heard such precise and incisive use of language. Nice blokes too. Starmer doesn't strike me as any of those things. Despite his cv he comes across as slow on his feet and puts his foot in his mouth. I can only imagine he got those jobs for being well known as a jobsworth and a lickspittle.
I don't think you get to be KC unless you're a pretty good barrister.
Starmer doesn't strike me as any of those things.
Giving a lecture is pretty different to talking or giving a speech as a politician. Just listen to politicians after they've retired or moved on - they say quite different things.
Starmer doesn't strike me as any of those things.
Giving a lecture is pretty different to talking or giving a speech as a politician. Just listen to politicians after they've retired or moved on - they say quite different things.
If immigration was controlled and at a moderate level it would be fine - you could realistically plan in advance so you had enough skills to build the houses, the infrastructure and provide the additional services. Immigrants themselves would be part of the solution and most people would be fine with it
I just noticed this: It is controlled immigration - when people are here on visas, that's controlled.
Starmer and Farage are obsessing about a few refugees in boats
This is a major problem that needs dealing with - because gangs are exploiting extremely vulnerable people for profit. That is a bad thing. How we treat the refugees is also bad.
I don't think you get to be KC unless you're a pretty good barrister
Suella Braverman. I rest my case.
This is a major problem that needs dealing with - because gangs are exploiting extremely vulnerable people for profit. That is a bad thing. How we treat the refugees is also bad.
Most of it is optics, the perception that they are being put up in 5* hotels indefinitely and all the perceived hand outs and of course the biggy that you not getting hospital or doctor appointments as these people are taking them all.
The handling of refugees is almost engineered to produce a bogey man (and a lot of money for some property owners).
This is a major problem that needs dealing with - because gangs are exploiting extremely vulnerable people for profit. That is a bad thing. How we treat the refugees is also bad.
Most of it is optics, the perception that they are being put up in 5* hotels indefinitely and all the perceived hand outs and of course the biggy that you not getting hospital or doctor appointments as these people are taking them all.
The handling of refugees is almost engineered to produce a bogey man (and a lot of money for some property owners).
Molgrips, 36 800 refugees arrived on boats last year, a tiny fraction of immigration, and 0.005% of the British population. That really isn't a "major problem", the country can live with it, a tiny part of the misery in the world it can absorb. What is a major problem is 40% of the British population depressed about their financial situation. Mimicking Farage's blaming of the woes of the 40% on the 0.005% will see Starmer out of office and the first opportunity to improve things for the many in 14 years wasted.
FFS do something Starmer you idiot, because barrister or not you're an idiot giving us abundant proof every time you speak. When he was elected I was mildly hopeful, not hopeful enough to vote for him but hopeful. I now despair of him.
(and a lot of money for some property owners).
Not just property holders. Some of the biggest profiteers are those sitting between the government and the hotels etc.
In theory they are capped to 5% profit but that, of course, allows for rather substantial salaries to be paid out.
It also doesnt seem to be ideal for incentivising those companies to get the country a good deal.
Molgrips, 36 800 refugees arrived on boats last year, a tiny fraction of immigration, and 0.005% of the British population. That really isn't a "major problem"
It's a major problem for the people involved. They are being fleeced for money by criminals and given false promises, and being put in danger on unsuitable boats. I have no problem with accepting refugees in the UK, indeed I am happy for the UK to do this.
So it looks like another Brexit win as we get a new deal with the EU - only not as good as we had while we were a member. What was the point of Brexit again?
Given the state of the countires they've left and the journey's they've endured the 'gangs' Starmer can do anything about are tiny part of the problem. The 'gangs' operate well out of reach of Starmer. The man is dreaming again; consider the jouneys the people from south of the Sahara have endured, objectively the final Channel crossing is one of the least risky parts, and where there's a will there's a way. The obvious answer isn't "smash the gangs" it's an agreement with the EU on a quota of refugees and a system that is sufficiently attractive that refugees use it rather than taking a chance on an illegal crossing.
Suella Braverman. I rest my case.
Appointed KC automatically when she was made Attorney General, she didn't get it on merit.
So, do we think last week's Farage-esque xenophobia was some red meat thrown to the Brexity types in advance of this week's announcements?
Pitch rolling was the in vogue phrase during Johnson's so-called leadership, I believe.
So it looks like another Brexit win as we get a new deal with the EU - only not as good as we had while we were a member. What was the point of Brexit again?
Give me some details of this alleged deal, or will it be another memorandum of understanding like our non-enforceable trade agreement with the US?
Things that make me mad- the BBC's decision to lead every story on this with " making it easier to get through airport queues". No mention of the loss of hundreds of billions of pounds in trade and subsequent loss in taxes to the treasury. Is that how you sell it to the Brexit eff-wits? No queues at the airpot in Benidorm? Jeez.
